QIANFENG DAOISM (UK)

道﻿家千峰先天派

William James and Human Immortality

By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD

‘The whole subject of immortal life has its prima roots in personal feeling. I have to confess that my own personal feeling about immortality has never been of the keenest order, and that, among the problems that give my mind solicitude, this one does not take the very foremost place. Yet there are individuals with a real passion for the matter, men and women for whom a life hereafter is a pungent craving, and the thought of it an obsession; and in whom keenness of interest has bred an insight into the relations of the subject that no one lass penetrated with the mystery of it can attain.’

(William James – Ingersoll Lecturer [1898] Human Immortality)​

William James (1842-1910) was one of the most eminent academics the United States of America has produced, who trained as a medical doctor at Harvard University, before specialising in philosophy and psychology. In fact he was the first US scholar to formally teach psychology as an academic course. However, despite understanding and adhering to the material basis of Western evidential based science, he also strongly believed that individuals had the right to think as they please, and create thought structures not necessarily proven to be scientifically correct. For William James, the totality of human knowledge traverses the entire genre of human existence (throughout the ages) and could not be limited to the (albeit) necessary strictures of the modern scientific method. William James viewed the scientific method as being fundamentally correct for the progression and benefit of humanity as a species, but equally recognised that human thought possessed the capacity to ‘think’ in a much more liberal and free manner that served an entirely different (and fulfilling) function for human well-being, separate and distinct from the material benefits offered by modern scientific method. This pluralistic attitude enabled William James to fully explain the modern scientific method as he thought it should be applied to the study of the mind in the 19th century, whilst simultaneously thinking beyond the apparent limitations of that model, when considering human beliefs systems, (and attributes of those systems) that appeared to be of some considerable importance to many individuals within society.

William James did not ‘believe’ in religion, and neither did he participate in ‘faith-led’ belief systems. However, as a modern scientist, he did possess a method of approach (and consideration) to these subjects that did not require him to reject their premise outright. This is why William James – the secular scientist – was able to apply a sympathetic (and enquiring) mind toward these subjects that shed a unique light of insight upon their inner workings. William James approached the ‘idealistic’ theologies and philosophies as ‘being useful’ to humanity even if they were not entirely ‘scientific’ in nature. The point William James continuously made was that these types of human enquiry were not meant to be scientific, and as such performed an entirely different and unrelated function in the area of the generation and preservation of human knowledge and understanding. He understood that religious experiences, although not verifiable from a strictly scientific perspective, were nevertheless very ‘real’ to those undergoing the experience, and as such were an important part of existence for many people throughout society – even modern society. Therefore, the measurement of ‘religious’ or ‘philosophical’ truth could not be limited to the measurement of material substances (as found within modern science), but had to be sought elsewhere. The work of William James clearly states that religion (and philosophy) possess truth ‘outside’ of the scientific method, and that this is entirely the point of its premise – it is ‘transcendent’ of (knowable) material boundaries.

The Ingersoll Lecture was established in principle in 1893, when Miss Catherine Haskell Ingersoll left $5000 in her Will to Harvard University in the name of her late father (George Goldthwait Ingersoll), for the sole purpose of establishing an annual lecture entitled ‘the Immortality of Man’. This was instructed to be a single lecture delivered each year on any convenient day between the last day of May and the first day of December. This lecture must not be part of any established course already taught at Harvard, and has to be unique and ‘stand-alone’ in nature, nor can it be delivered by any Professor or tutor as part of his usual daily lecturing schedule. In theory anyone can deliver this lecture (although this is generally taken to mean any ‘academic’), but is not limited to clergymen or any single denomination (as non-religious laymen are encouraged to lecture). The chosen lecturer for each year is to be chosen six months in advance of the lecture date. The inaugural Ingersoll Lecture occurred in 1896, and William James was asked to deliver the Ingersoll Lecture for 1898.*

William James delivered the Ingersoll Lecture for 1898 entitled ‘Human Immortality – Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine’. What is interesting is that William James pursues an entirely Judeo-Christian format for his lecture, and assumes that ‘immortality’ is a spiritual state that is believed to be experienced following the death of the physical body. In other words, his argument (borrowed from Christianity) assumes an existence of a permanent ‘soul’ and its survival after the associated physical body ceases to function. At no time does William James raise the issue of Chinese Daoism, and neither does he consider the possibility of ‘immortality’ being a state of good health experienced in this life-time, prior to the experience of physical death. In other words, the idea of immortality as conceived within the Qianfeng School of living until at least 100 years old due to appropriate (Daoist) psychological and physical conditioning and training. This is not necessarily a deficiency on the part of William James himself, but is rather an indication of where the debate was at that time in the US (and Europe). As Christianity had been the dominant historical religion of the West, any ideas or notion of ‘immortality’ (even in modern, secular form) tended to have arisen from that religion’s theological view of the world (and notions of the after-life).

However, having established the methodological boundary and limitation of his argument, it is important to note that the comments of William James, in many ways are beneficial to all types of religious or philosophical thinking in the world, as he openly questions the ‘materialist’ view of reality. In his Ingersoll Lecture, William James raises two distinct issues, and then sets about offering different or alternatives explanations for the viewpoints expressed. The two issues (termed ‘two supposed objections to the doctrine’) are summarised as follows:

1) The brain creates consciousness and when the brain ceases to function at the point of physical death – consciousness also ceases.

2) If millions upon millions of human-beings have lived and died throughout time, and if immortality (as an ‘afterlife’) is correct, then surely wherever these ‘immortal’ beings have transmigrated to after physical death, then surely this place must be terribly over-crowded.

The second objection is, by definition, ‘non-sensible’ because it involves a realm obviously beyond that of material existence. William James state that in the past the world seemed like a very small place, and the idea of ‘material space’ being an issue in the afterlife simply was not present. He makes the poignant observation that in the old days, this unquestioning attitude of assumed spatial expansiveness was very much the product of ‘aristocratic’ thinking, but that in modern times, with its emphasis upon the correct and precise measurement of matter, human thinking imagines that if there was any such afterlife, surely there must be a limit to the number of disembodied souls that can be accommodated in that realm beyond the physical. However, William James states that if humanity has immortal souls, then why not all creatures? If European Christians have immortal souls, then why not non-Christian people from other parts of the world? There is no need whatsoever to assume that only European Christians have souls, or that an ‘afterlife’ should in anyway be limited by the rules of physical life. As the afterlife is most definitely ‘not here’, then its limitations cannot be assumed through recourse to the laws of physics. Comparing this world to any assumed ‘other world’ is illogical because nothing is known about the ‘other world’. For William James, the limitations of modern physics should not be used as an excuse to assume a prejudice against the ‘idea’ of immortality within another realm. This approach lacks creative imagination and involves a type of materially derived ‘narrow-mindedness’ that mistakenly draws its legitimacy from an assumed association with science. Whilst correctly pursuing the stringent method of modern science, scientists should also set aside time to work on other areas of the mind. This is very much an argument against using science as an excuse not to allow the imagination to fulfil its task, and give rise to speculative realities (which may, or may not exist). In many ways, material science is often advanced through this process of ‘looking beyond’ the limitations of current understanding and theory. If this is the case on the material plane, then why not on the ethereal plane?

In the ‘Notes’ section to his Ingersoll Lecture, William James states that there are three theories to how the brain can work, they are:

1) Theory of production.2a) Theory of combination.2b) Theory of separation.

The strictly material theory states that the brain brings into being all consciousness as mind (i.e. ‘thought’), and that at the point of death of the body, all thought (i.e. ‘consciousness’) ceases to exist. In this model there is no ‘afterlife’. William James, however, makes the point that the brain only ceases to function in a materialist sense, if it is defined as being a machine that ‘produces’ thought (1. theory of production). Like any machine that wears-out or breaks-down, when the brain stops functioning, its ‘product’ (or ‘thought’) stops being created. On the other hand, the idealist position (2b. theory of separation) is that consciousness (or ‘thought’) pre-exists the formation of the brain, and that all the brains in existence (through the agency of their associated and ‘distinct’ physical bodies they occupy) manifest a diverse expression of awareness (this process separates and spreads consciousness in dualistic form across existence). Although the brain and physical body lose functionality and dissipate at the point of death, this ‘universal’ consciousness continues to exist unaffected by fluctuations of mortal existence. (William James does not make use of theory 2a in his Ingersoll Lecture, but states in his ‘Notes’ that it is incompatible with ‘immortality’ theory, as it asserts that consciousness is a direct consequence of the combined firing of nerve-endings, and that when this ‘firing’ ceases – consciousness ceases). Through emphasising theory 2b in his argument, William James removes dependency upon theory, along with the ‘materialist’ argument. Theory 2b suggests that an individual, through following a correct form of perceptual training, could realise the fact that consciousness is universal whilst still living in a physical body, and at the point of physical death, smoothly transfer into that realised universality. It is entirely possible, working with this model, to suggest that such a training that leads to this type of realisation might involve an extension of physical existence, as a natural consequence, sustained by the personal realisation of universal awareness.

It is interesting to note that William James states at the time (the late 19th century), that the primary academic objection to the notion of ‘immortality’ was based upon the ‘production’ model. This suggests that the brain acts very much like a gland that secretes hormones, but in the case of the brain, its secretion is ‘thought’ (i.e. ‘mind’ as a continuous flow of thoughts). However, just as the Buddha explains his system as ‘nama-rupa’ (or ‘mind-body’ interaction), the modern scientific theory of consciousness is similar (represented by theory 2a – not overtly covered by James). Theory 2a does not view the brain as a gland with thought as its secretion, but rather perceives consciousness as an innate (bio-electric) interaction between nerve-endings, operating as special arrangements of matter. In effect, the brain and the thought it creates are ‘one’ in origin and cannot be ‘separated’ as in the model of theory 1. Thought is never separate from the brain matter that generates it, and should the brain stop functioning (as in physical death), the brain-thought nexus ceases. William James does not cover the 2a theory in this lecture because theory 1 posits exactly the same problem that if the brain ceases to operate, thought ceases to manifest. If the idealistic model is correct (theory 2b) is correct, then as William James remarks, it does not matter if the brain ‘dies’ or stops functioning, as universal consciousness exist regardless. This is not the accepted scientific view, as its parameters do not coincide with the observable (and replicable) results of modern scientific investigation. Theory 2b is a purely speculative philosophical argument that is the inversion of the scientific method. Whereas science perceives the external physical world as independently existing of the mind that observes it, the 2b theory suggests that the physical world is created by the mind that perceives (this appears to be a secular restating of the Judeo-Christian theological position that a god created existence as an act of ‘will’ – here ‘god’ is replaced by the ‘mind’).

William James states at the beginning of his Ingersoll Lecture that he does not adhere to the notion of ‘immortality’, and is not particularly ‘religious’. Throughout the presentation, he approaches the subject from the position of an enquiring scientific and broad mind, whereby he attempts to find ways of suggesting how ‘immortality’ might be correct, if not entirely ‘scientific’ in nature. If he had known of or understood about Chinese Daoist theory and practice, he might have changed the entire paradigm of the debate. Although Daoist mythology does posit the idea of certain individuals living forever, they are not generally ‘reborn’ in some hidden ‘paradise’ in another realm, even if it is acknowledged that Chinese Daoism does have a very well developed symbology (integrating practical medicine, shamanism, superstition and ritual). However, all indications are that the core of Daoist thinking is rational and premised upon the science of Chinese medicine (which approaches reality from a different cultural direction than that of the cultures of the West). When the mysticism and religiosity are stripped away from Daoism, it is clear that ‘living for a long time’ is the point and purpose of Daoist self-developmental techniques. This means that Chinese Daoist ‘immortality’ is thoroughly in accordance with ‘theory 2a’ – the theory preferred by modern Western science to explain the brain and consciousness – and the very theory that William James chose not to explore in his Ingersoll Lecture upon ‘immortality’. This means that the firing between nerve-endings in the brain (that create consciousness) and throughout the body (in all its varied functionality) are preserved, strengthened and retained in a highly vigorous state that might be explained as ‘repetitious’ being. Whereas the Western, Judeo-Christian tradition (even in its secular form) views ‘immortality’ as a matter of ‘life after death’, the traditional Chinese Daoist model is more concerned with the building of health and extension of the life-span here and now, or in other words, Chinese Daoism specialises in ‘living life to the full before death’.

Lecturing in 1898, William James was not trying to prove that ‘immortality’ existed, but approached the subject by attacking what he describes as two common objections to the idea, prevalent at the time. These objections appear to be ‘scientific’ in nature, or at least emanating from the scientifically trained community. William James attempts to place the notion of ‘immortality’ onto a scientific-footing, when he suggests that materialist science, (that is a science premised upon the correct and precise measurement of matter), should observe the subject of ‘immortality’ through the prism of ‘idealistic’ (or ‘mind-centric’) philosophy. Idealistic philosophy, at its most basic premise, denies the validity of an independently existing, self-developing, and self-propelling physical world, free of divine interference or divine inspiration. Such a world is thought to ‘emerge’ (in one way or another) from the mind that perceives it, and to be the product of either human or divine will. This model interfaces – for William James – with theory 2b of the function of the mind, which he describes as being ‘transmissive’ (or ‘permissive’) in nature. This is how he attempts to over-come the problem of ‘functional dependence’ which states that when the physical brain stops working, consciousness stops existing. Instead, William James offers the alternative model that suggests that the brain is a ‘sensor’ that perceives a pre-existing, universal consciousness (i.e. the universe as ‘mind’) and acts as a ‘transmitter’ of that consciousness into the world of human affairs. As this consciousness (which can be viewed as roughly parallel to the Judeo-Christian soul theory) is considered the essence of ‘life’ and of ‘existence’, it is thought to pre-exist any individual brain that perceives it, and to post-exist any individual brain that has ceased to function (as in the case of physical death). The brain is a physical organ dependent upon cause and effect in the physical world, but it also serves to ‘sense’ and ‘direct’ universal consciousness through its physical structure. The extent to which an individual understands this process, according to William James, depends upon the level of awareness of each person, and their ability to ‘see’ through the conditionality of physical existence. The brain becomes the doorway of ‘escape’ from the tyranny and determination of material existence, and there is a ‘hint’ that with the right training, universal consciousness could be realised in this very life, and not just in the post-death state, although William James does not develop this idea. He explains that individual consciousness is merely a misunderstood universal consciousness, and that at the point of physical death, ‘individuality’ falls-away as the personal brain shuts-down and dies. William James seems to be following a secular version of Judeo-Christian theology at this point, assuming that the individual soul (i.e. personal consciousness) leaves the brain at the point of physical death, and is re-absorbed back into the god-head (i.e. universal consciousness) from where it first emerged at the point of individual conception, soon after in the developing embryo.

As William James never considers the possibility of ‘immortality’ being defined as prolonged or extended life-spans on the physical plane, he is very limited as to the approaches he can use as a ‘scientific’ approach to the subject, as even the ‘idealism’ he settles upon can hardly be referred to as ‘scientific’, either then (1898) or now (2016). Although an eminent psychologist and philosopher (as well as a biologist), William James is attempting to present a secular ‘idealism’ (as ‘science’) that has its roots in the Judeo-Christian history of Europe. For him, ‘immortality’ appears to be only the confirmation of the Judeo-Christian theological view of existence, and nothing more. It seems extraordinary that he remained (even then) totally unaware of any other models of ‘immortality’, or of the work of his contemporary academic August Weismann (1834-1915). August Weismann was an evolutionary biologist who stated that he saw no reason for human cells to ‘die’ once they were fully developed and optimally functioning. Weismann saw no obvious scientific reason why body cells should die at all. In their ideal state, body cells should operate through endless cycles of growth, decay and re-growth without interruption, enabling a potentially limitless lifespan. Weismann stated that mortality in individuals was not a primary necessity but that it had been secondarily acquired as an evolutionary adaption. How can ‘dying’ have a beneficial effect for the human species? The immortal sex cells use the mortal physical body as a vehicle for propagation from one generation to the next, and that in so doing, it is important that these vehicles fall away so that ‘new’ combinations of sex cells are achieved through reproduction. William James does not consider this type of biology-led ‘immortality’, but such an idea is the foundation of various schools of Chinese Daoism found in China today, as well as China in the past. Although the Qianfeng School does acknowledge states of conscious awareness and conscious expansion, these states do not go beyond the explanation of psychological states occurring within a healthy and well-functioning physical body.

*This is the date given in the 1903 hardback edition of the text of his lecture, published by Archibald Constable & Co Ltd (Westminster). As this is the fifth edition of this text in 1903, it logically follows that William James delivered his Ingersoll Lecture in 1898 – as this is the date given in the book. I mention this as I own a copy of this book, and note that Wikipedia gives the year of William James’s Ingersoll Lecture as occurring in 1897.